Wait, the App Store is merely a polished WinMo/Palm store?
As a developer and a consumer, I wholeheartedly disagree. The App store is a complete paradigm shift as are the devices with access to it.
In all fairness, the App Store became what it was because developers saw the opportunity and pressured Apple to open it up to them. [The App Store was not announched the same time as part of the iPhone launch.]
Apple was good enough to "see the light", take advantage of a good idea, and supported its development wholeheartedly. And the rest is history.
The collective efforts of developers with the "Apple touch" (not to be confused with the touch technology) helped make the iOS mobile computing devices what they are today.
The App Store could even be better, if Apple publish a more transparent set of rules. With consent of developers, use actual examples why an App was rejected.
Whether we use an iPhone or not, we have all benefited from Apple's entrance into the marketplace. Hearing this, I am very glad that Apple did not submit to Verizon's demands in 2007
Years after Verizon Wireless shunned Apple's iPhone because it wanted more control over the device...
For the record, there is another big reason why Apple didn't go with Verizon that's rarely mentioned, and isn't mentioned in this article.
To go with Verizon Apple would have to make a CDMA phone, but there is no way that they would hobble themselves by not selling iPhones in Europe and Japan so they would have to make a second GSM phone in relatively short order.
In other words if they went with Verizon, they would complicate their production line immensely from the get-go because they would be making two versions of every phone every year, or they would have a much shorter exclusivity period with Verizon (like a year or less), or they might even have both problems at once.
I know people love the idea of a Verizon iPhone and so forth but IMO it's much more likely that a Verizon deal was *never* in the cards and that Apple simply played Verizon off of AT&T, to get AT&T to cave on what they wanted them to do.
What they ended up doing (going with GSM and AT&T), makes a thousand percent more sense than any of the alternate theories people like to spin. There has been practically zero downside to the AT&T exclusivity except for the recent lifeline it has given the runner up (Android).
I wonder, will people try to burn down Verizon Wireless when they switch to tiered data plans like they did with AT&T, or will they blindly continue to assume Verizon is perfect because "everyone" says they are, regardless of what works best in THEIR part of the country?
"In my mind, Apple is just another in a long list of companies who make the mistake of following their own vision — like Porsche or Nike. Whatever happened to just fitting in?"
What is this? Is this a leak that states that Verizon will get the iphone? Is this Verizon creating a market position against AT&T? Wait for us, don't buy yet? Do you think SJ would have approved of a partner mouthing off like this, or is this managing the release?
This appears to be a strategic marketing maneuver. Verizon is eating crow, while crowing at the same time.
OK now I'm ready to believe Verizon iPhone rumors.
Admission of being wrong and recognition of Apple's vision means that relations can now be repaired and iPhone can make its way onto big red and both companies save face.
Me too. I think Apple will wait until the real 4G packet-switched all-IP networks have been rolled out, maybe by 2012. They will all use the same standard (which hasn't even been chosen yet) so manufacturers can just build one worldwide phone. In theory, anyway.
By then, AT&T will be saturated with iPhone users, and the percentage of new subscriber iPhone activations will drop. That means it will be time for Apple to work with other carriers like Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and whoever else. Any carrier using 4G.
So why is the DroidX pre-loaded with 3rd party crapware? None of the carriers have learned a thing. If the iPhone disappeared tomorrow, they'd still be shilling their crummy Java games and expensive ringtones.
At the same time, Verizon also agrees with Google's outlook that native apps will eventually give way to web apps. Google employees have noted that the company sees its Android apps as a temporary platform that will eventually make way for web apps as soon as browser technology improves enough.
That's key to the company's Chrome OS, where apps are entirely web-based, built entirely from HTML5, JavaScript and CSS web standards rather than in Android's Java-like runtime, native Linux apps, or another runtime like Windows Phone 7's Silverlight. Google has supported the idea of running Adobe Flash content within ChromeOS however, largely in reaction to Apple's refusal to support Flash within iOS.
I still can't get my head round the idea of web apps. Phones/pads will continue to increase in computational power, along with increased energy efficiencies and battery life. Why wouldn't you want to be doing your processing on your own device rather than sending it off to a server somewhere to do it instead? This would be entirely dependant on the network being up, or available where you happen to be, and would be an act of faith if the data was sensitive that its security was assured. Why go through that when you already have "a computer in your pocket"?
Also, boy are they going to have to upgrade the network! Sending your 10MB raw image up for a bit of tweaking, retrieving it, sending it up again for another tweak and so on. I would have thought that web apps were a temporary solution until such time as you've got a Mac Pro in your pocket.
I still can't get my head round the idea of web apps. Phones/pads will continue to increase in computational power, along with increased energy efficiencies and battery life. Why wouldn't you want to be doing your processing on your own device rather than sending it off to a server somewhere to do it instead? This would be entirely dependant on the network being up, or available where you happen to be, and would be an act of faith if the data was sensitive that its security was assured. Why go through that when you already have "a computer in your pocket"?
Also, boy are they going to have to upgrade the network! Sending your 10MB raw image up for a bit of tweaking, retrieving it, sending it up again for another tweak and so on. I would have thought that web apps were a temporary solution until such time as you've got a Mac Pro in your pocket.
HTML5 supports offline storage and offline database.
of course sending a 10MB image online just for editing is going to be a problem, but for other things it's really not totally impossible. In fact Google's betting their Chrome OS on that.
Some may argue that the potential sales on Verizon are limited. Maybe a couple of million phones.
No one knows the Return of Investment (ROI) on the iPhones. How many phones would they have to sell on Verizon to brake even. Covering all the cost of deployment etc.
Well.. Steve knows.
My guess is maybe 200.000-600.000 phones. Maybe more, maybe less.
Another factor in having the iPhone on Verizon is home market pleasing.
You want your home market happy.
Few companies start off with global sales. The home market is something to fall back on and is usually where your business is best.
Web apps are great if you have connectivity etc etc.
Not so good in airplane-mode though.
Even though it's a phone, it still has to have *some* local apps. And, oh, I don't want all my personal data on someone else's cloud. Not until the legal ownership issues are resolved.
HTML5 supports offline storage and offline database.
of course sending a 10MB image online just for editing is going to be a problem, but for other things it's really not totally impossible. In fact Google's betting their Chrome OS on that.
I can certainly understand offline storage that you can access from any device anywhere on the network, but online databases already exist, there are some I access every day, but you don't need an app for that other than a browser.
Perhaps the thinking is that you would just need a very cheap dumb terminal in your pocket as opposed to a $600 version of a 1990 supercomputer!
Let's not be too quick to give them credit for seeing the light; after all, Verizon is still the preeminent nickle-and-dime-them-to-death vendor in the modern age.
Let's not forget that AT&T just recently adopted Qualcomm BREW as their platform for all their mid level feature phones.
I still can't get my head round the idea of web apps. Phones/pads will continue to increase in computational power, along with increased energy efficiencies and battery life. Why wouldn't you want to be doing your processing on your own device rather than sending it off to a server somewhere to do it instead? This would be entirely dependant on the network being up, or available where you happen to be, and would be an act of faith if the data was sensitive that its security was assured. Why go through that when you already have "a computer in your pocket"?
Also, boy are they going to have to upgrade the network! Sending your 10MB raw image up for a bit of tweaking, retrieving it, sending it up again for another tweak and so on. I would have thought that web apps were a temporary solution until such time as you've got a Mac Pro in your pocket.
Indeed.
They "Think Different" my @ss! (In this case "Think Differently" is more appropriate, as they really need to change the way they think rather than just consider different ways of thinking!)
Web apps! They will get what remains of their genitalia handed to them on a platter (again) if they really believe things will be moving to web apps. Just what everyone wants?apps that only work when you pay for and have a signal. This makes me think more than ever that they will *not* be getting iPhones anytime soon! Idiots.
HTML5 supports offline storage and offline database.
of course sending a 10MB image online just for editing is going to be a problem, but for other things it's really not totally impossible. In fact Google's betting their Chrome OS on that.
"The Cloud" is a tool, not a destination!
Google's "Chrome OS" is a silly step backwards. Some folks will lay down for Google, but anyone who values their data and their privacy will not be charmed. Frankly, I think Google has run its course and will begin to decline unless they get back to concentrating on value for users rather than surreptitiously lining their own pockets by selling their users out. A business or individual with valuable data would be irresponsible to make use of most Google services or software.
Comments
Wait, the App Store is merely a polished WinMo/Palm store?
As a developer and a consumer, I wholeheartedly disagree. The App store is a complete paradigm shift as are the devices with access to it.
In all fairness, the App Store became what it was because developers saw the opportunity and pressured Apple to open it up to them. [The App Store was not announched the same time as part of the iPhone launch.]
Apple was good enough to "see the light", take advantage of a good idea, and supported its development wholeheartedly. And the rest is history.
The collective efforts of developers with the "Apple touch" (not to be confused with the touch technology) helped make the iOS mobile computing devices what they are today.
The App Store could even be better, if Apple publish a more transparent set of rules. With consent of developers, use actual examples why an App was rejected.
CGC
iHates called that draconian
Years after Verizon Wireless shunned Apple's iPhone because it wanted more control over the device...
For the record, there is another big reason why Apple didn't go with Verizon that's rarely mentioned, and isn't mentioned in this article.
To go with Verizon Apple would have to make a CDMA phone, but there is no way that they would hobble themselves by not selling iPhones in Europe and Japan so they would have to make a second GSM phone in relatively short order.
In other words if they went with Verizon, they would complicate their production line immensely from the get-go because they would be making two versions of every phone every year, or they would have a much shorter exclusivity period with Verizon (like a year or less), or they might even have both problems at once.
I know people love the idea of a Verizon iPhone and so forth but IMO it's much more likely that a Verizon deal was *never* in the cards and that Apple simply played Verizon off of AT&T, to get AT&T to cave on what they wanted them to do.
What they ended up doing (going with GSM and AT&T), makes a thousand percent more sense than any of the alternate theories people like to spin. There has been practically zero downside to the AT&T exclusivity except for the recent lifeline it has given the runner up (Android).
I wonder, will people try to burn down Verizon Wireless when they switch to tiered data plans like they did with AT&T, or will they blindly continue to assume Verizon is perfect because "everyone" says they are, regardless of what works best in THEIR part of the country?
This sums everything up. My favorite part:
"In my mind, Apple is just another in a long list of companies who make the mistake of following their own vision — like Porsche or Nike. Whatever happened to just fitting in?"
This appears to be a strategic marketing maneuver. Verizon is eating crow, while crowing at the same time.
Admission of being wrong and recognition of Apple's vision means that relations can now be repaired and iPhone can make its way onto big red and both companies save face.
I still can't see a CDMA iPhone happening.
Me too. I think Apple will wait until the real 4G packet-switched all-IP networks have been rolled out, maybe by 2012. They will all use the same standard (which hasn't even been chosen yet) so manufacturers can just build one worldwide phone. In theory, anyway.
By then, AT&T will be saturated with iPhone users, and the percentage of new subscriber iPhone activations will drop. That means it will be time for Apple to work with other carriers like Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and whoever else. Any carrier using 4G.
At the same time, Verizon also agrees with Google's outlook that native apps will eventually give way to web apps. Google employees have noted that the company sees its Android apps as a temporary platform that will eventually make way for web apps as soon as browser technology improves enough.
That's key to the company's Chrome OS, where apps are entirely web-based, built entirely from HTML5, JavaScript and CSS web standards rather than in Android's Java-like runtime, native Linux apps, or another runtime like Windows Phone 7's Silverlight. Google has supported the idea of running Adobe Flash content within ChromeOS however, largely in reaction to Apple's refusal to support Flash within iOS.
I still can't get my head round the idea of web apps. Phones/pads will continue to increase in computational power, along with increased energy efficiencies and battery life. Why wouldn't you want to be doing your processing on your own device rather than sending it off to a server somewhere to do it instead? This would be entirely dependant on the network being up, or available where you happen to be, and would be an act of faith if the data was sensitive that its security was assured. Why go through that when you already have "a computer in your pocket"?
Also, boy are they going to have to upgrade the network! Sending your 10MB raw image up for a bit of tweaking, retrieving it, sending it up again for another tweak and so on. I would have thought that web apps were a temporary solution until such time as you've got a Mac Pro in your pocket.
Verizon is eating crow, while crowing at the same time.
Nice turn of phrase.
I still can't get my head round the idea of web apps. Phones/pads will continue to increase in computational power, along with increased energy efficiencies and battery life. Why wouldn't you want to be doing your processing on your own device rather than sending it off to a server somewhere to do it instead? This would be entirely dependant on the network being up, or available where you happen to be, and would be an act of faith if the data was sensitive that its security was assured. Why go through that when you already have "a computer in your pocket"?
Also, boy are they going to have to upgrade the network! Sending your 10MB raw image up for a bit of tweaking, retrieving it, sending it up again for another tweak and so on. I would have thought that web apps were a temporary solution until such time as you've got a Mac Pro in your pocket.
HTML5 supports offline storage and offline database.
of course sending a 10MB image online just for editing is going to be a problem, but for other things it's really not totally impossible. In fact Google's betting their Chrome OS on that.
I still can't see a CDMA iPhone happening.
But I can see Apple trying to make an LTE phone (on Verizon) just sold in LTE locations but which roams to T-mobile elsewhere (2G?)
(edit: better in the T-mobile thread... http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...83#post1681683)
I disagree.
Some may argue that the potential sales on Verizon are limited. Maybe a couple of million phones.
No one knows the Return of Investment (ROI) on the iPhones. How many phones would they have to sell on Verizon to brake even. Covering all the cost of deployment etc.
Well.. Steve knows.
My guess is maybe 200.000-600.000 phones. Maybe more, maybe less.
Another factor in having the iPhone on Verizon is home market pleasing.
You want your home market happy.
Few companies start off with global sales. The home market is something to fall back on and is usually where your business is best.
Not so good in airplane-mode though.
Even though it's a phone, it still has to have *some* local apps. And, oh, I don't want all my personal data on someone else's cloud. Not until the legal ownership issues are resolved.
I would have thought that web apps were a temporary solution until such time as you've got a Mac Pro in your pocket.
I think it is more: Mac Pros are a temporary solution until bandwidth increases enough and all your data moves into the cloud.
HTML5 supports offline storage and offline database.
of course sending a 10MB image online just for editing is going to be a problem, but for other things it's really not totally impossible. In fact Google's betting their Chrome OS on that.
I can certainly understand offline storage that you can access from any device anywhere on the network, but online databases already exist, there are some I access every day, but you don't need an app for that other than a browser.
Perhaps the thinking is that you would just need a very cheap dumb terminal in your pocket as opposed to a $600 version of a 1990 supercomputer!
Let's not be too quick to give them credit for seeing the light; after all, Verizon is still the preeminent nickle-and-dime-them-to-death vendor in the modern age.
Let's not forget that AT&T just recently adopted Qualcomm BREW as their platform for all their mid level feature phones.
Nickel and diming is alive and well.
I still can't get my head round the idea of web apps. Phones/pads will continue to increase in computational power, along with increased energy efficiencies and battery life. Why wouldn't you want to be doing your processing on your own device rather than sending it off to a server somewhere to do it instead? This would be entirely dependant on the network being up, or available where you happen to be, and would be an act of faith if the data was sensitive that its security was assured. Why go through that when you already have "a computer in your pocket"?
Also, boy are they going to have to upgrade the network! Sending your 10MB raw image up for a bit of tweaking, retrieving it, sending it up again for another tweak and so on. I would have thought that web apps were a temporary solution until such time as you've got a Mac Pro in your pocket.
Indeed.
They "Think Different" my @ss! (In this case "Think Differently" is more appropriate, as they really need to change the way they think rather than just consider different ways of thinking!)
Web apps! They will get what remains of their genitalia handed to them on a platter (again) if they really believe things will be moving to web apps. Just what everyone wants?apps that only work when you pay for and have a signal. This makes me think more than ever that they will *not* be getting iPhones anytime soon! Idiots.
I still can't see a CDMA iPhone happening.
But I can see Apple trying to make an LTE phone (on Verizon) just sold in LTE locations but which roams to T-mobile elsewhere (2G?)
(edit: better in the T-mobile thread... http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...83#post1681683)
I guess you didn't read the in-depth Wired article this week where they said Apple is working with Qualcomm to make the hybrid CDMA/3G chip.
HTML5 supports offline storage and offline database.
of course sending a 10MB image online just for editing is going to be a problem, but for other things it's really not totally impossible. In fact Google's betting their Chrome OS on that.
"The Cloud" is a tool, not a destination!
Google's "Chrome OS" is a silly step backwards. Some folks will lay down for Google, but anyone who values their data and their privacy will not be charmed. Frankly, I think Google has run its course and will begin to decline unless they get back to concentrating on value for users rather than surreptitiously lining their own pockets by selling their users out. A business or individual with valuable data would be irresponsible to make use of most Google services or software.
Best